NPR interviewed a Gautemalan a few days ago who was about to cross into Mexico on his twelfth attempt to get to the US, having been caught the previous eleven times. If he will do that, why won't Al Qaeda and, just staying with the illegals for a minute, can we really do what it takes to stop this man and why do we want to?

David, your story begs the question - how did this Guatemalan stay in Mexico to make those 11 attempts? What did he eat? Where did he live? Something for Bush to ask Mr. Fox.

Yes, and we should.

1. Terrorists sneak across:

Federal agents found thousands of dollars and evidence of wire transfers when they searched the house of an illegal immigrant charged with providing material support to terrorists... The U.S. Attorney's Office said Kourani bribed a Mexican consular official in Beirut to get a visa to travel to Mexico. Kourani and a traveling companion then paid another man in Mexico to be smuggled across the southern U.S. border on Feb. 4, 2001, the government said.

2. Crime

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

3. Taxes:

paying about $1,178 a year in state and local taxes to cover services used by immigrant households...new immigrant families receive more in publicly funded services than they pay in taxes, the panel said. Most -- especially those from Latin America -- tend to have more school-aged children and require more educational services than other households.

Historically, the wages of immigrants who entered the country when they were 25 or younger eventually equaled those of native workers after immigrants had been in the work force for about 20 years. However, because new immigrants are coming to the United States with substantially lower education and skill levels and are starting with lower wages, it be may more difficult for them to close the wage gap. In particular, most Mexican male immigrants, who make among the lowest initial wages, have not seen any increase in wages relative to those of native workers even after 20 years in the U.S. work force.

David, you and Orrin really need to stop romanticizing illegal aliens. You're being taken for a ride by soft-focus portrayals by stations like NPR. Come on - arent' right wingers are supposed to be the hard-headed smart ones? Left-wingers are the soft-headed bleeding hearts who don't think about what their "compassion" costs the taxpayer.

Just to review:

Illegal aliens commit crimes at very high rates and are net tax recipients. They are primarily responsible for California's multibillion dollar budget deficit. Mexicans in particular have not economically assimilated after 40 years of immigration, despite receiving preferences that are not accorded to other immigrant groups like the Chinese and Russians.

why take people who are a burden on social services for generations, and who commit so much crime? why fingerprint people at airports while giving amnesty to millions? It makes no sense, economically or in terms of national security.

You don't think that bringing them into the system, removing them from the cesspool of the black market-underworld that they are invariably a part of due to their illegal status, will change any of that? Even a little? Not one tiny little bit?

I have yet to hear a serious alternative to Bush's plan--and I don't consider the status quo, deporting them all, nor straight amnesty to be serious.

godless:

Because other Christians aren't having enough children--we need to grow the population somehow and they're the most like us and not at all dissimilar to prior immigrant groups. We romanticize the mafia now too.

Not the Russian mafia, I hope. Or any of the Asian organized crime groups.

jim:

Shhhhh--they aren't Mexican so we don't hate them.

You don't think that bringing them into the system... will change any of that

Timothy, this amnesty will only encourage MORE illegal immigration, just like the 1986 amnesty did. Think about it: how is an illegal alien going to match up with a "willing employer"? That connection isn't going to be made over the phone in Honduras. No, that guy is going to try to get in the US *somehow* and let the legality catch up later.

Incentivizing bad behavior is not a good idea. This is as backwards as payments to single mothers, a policy which *seems* compassionate but actually encourages single motherhood.

Furthermore - unlike skilled immigrants -unskilled immigrants *in general* are net burdens on the taxpayer even past the 2nd generation:

"It doesn't take a genius to figure out that education is the best predictor of income and thus of benefit and cost," said UC Davis economist Philip L. Martin, an expert on rural immigrants.

He cites studies that say an arriving immigrant with at least a high school education will pay an average $89,000 more in taxes and other revenues than he or she costs in services. Those with less than a high-school education, however, put such a demand on public services that their large negative value persists through their children's and grandchildren's generations.

I understand compassion, but at some point we need to be financially realistic and fiscally conservative. In California, we are talking about $1200 dollars per household to pay for these people (see above). That is a LOT of money. We could instead take millions of doctors and computer scientists from China/India/Russia/etc. per year, people who'll pay for themself.

But we are currently admitting more than 80% of our legal immigrants on the basis of nepotism or outright lottery, along with the half a million illegals per year.

A merit based policy is much more American than family connections.

Timothy:

I have yet to hear a serious alternative to Bush's plan--and I don't consider the status quo, deporting them all, nor straight amnesty to be serious.

Bush's policy is an amnesty. It gives legal status to 8 million workers and puts them on the path to citizenship. As for how to solve this problem, we don't need to deport all of them - there is a better way. I highly recommend this piece and this piece:

Quietly, all across America, illegal immigrants are doing an extraordinary thing -- deporting themselves.

In response to stepped-up immigration enforcement, thousands of Arab and Muslim illegals are leaving for home on their own. It is a dynamic that offers the first hopeful sign for solving an illegal-immigration crisis that has an estimated 700,000 illegals coming to the United States a year and joining an illegal population of roughly 9 million.

And this:

But the numbers matter. As it stands, every year 400,000 illegal immigrants are deported, leave the country voluntarily, or get green cards and become legal. Every year another 800,000 illegals enter the country. So we have a net increase of 400,000 to the illegal population. Are we really convinced that it is impossible to increase the 400,000 departures or reduce the 800,000 entries?

We could consider an amnesty after we'd reduced the net influx to zero. However, it is my opinion that even a gesture of law enforcement will lead to an outcome similar to that of illegal Muslim immigrants: self-deportation.

Orrin:

Because other Christians aren't having enough children

Hispanics, like blacks, are more Christian and socially conservative than the average white American. However, that does not translate into support for Christian policies in the US. Economic leftism outweighs social conservatism, which is why Hispanics and blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

Bush will not get their vote for the Republicans with this amnesty. What is missed by many is that a huge influx of unskilled labor will further depress the wages of American unskilled workers - leading to ever more calls for economic redistribution, and more votes for the Democrats. Skilled Americans can retrain to compete with immigrant labor, but unskilled Americans can only compete on price.

Bush's amnesty is nothing less than class warfare against low wage Americans - which is why legal Hispanics oppose it:

An amnesty does not appear to be a way of winning Hispanic votes for either party, with 51 percent of respondents identifying it is a bad idea and 49 percent thinking it’s a good idea. When asked how it might affect their vote, twice as many Hispanics in the survey (33 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Bush in 2004 if he supported an amnesty compared to 15 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for him. The same basic pattern exists for Democratic candidates, with 36 percent of Hispanics saying they would be less likely to vote for a Democrat in Congress who supports an amnesty and 20 percent indicating they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who supports amnesty.

Bottom line: high levels of Hispanic immigration will *not* lead to more Christian policies. They will lead to more votes for the Democrats. Furthermore, the blacks and Hispanics already legally in the US will be alienated by this policy, as it will drive their wages down and push them further into the arms of the Democrats.

godless:

Their Christianity is more important than their liberalism. Their kids will be Christian and conservative, just like every other immigrant group ever.

Their kids will be Christian and conservative, just like every other immigrant group ever.

Not true:

Rodolfo O. de la Garza, a Columbia University political scientist, said second-generation Latinos are less religious than their parents and have more liberal views on abortion....Both said the children of Latino immigrants, like their parents, do not necessarily favor more immigration, because it means more competition for jobs.

But Ramirez and de la Garza said the children of Latino immigrants are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican, in part because they support a strong role for government. Ramirez said the GOP would have better luck courting Hispanic immigrants than their children because the first generation is more conservative on some issues.

Then they buy homes, have kids in college, etc., etc., and revert to the mean. As the Pew surveys show, they're more socially conservativbe than anglos and as quickly as the second generation begin drifting away from the Democrats.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/page.jsp?page=reports

Orrin:

Then they buy homes, have kids in college, etc., etc., and revert to the mean

The whole point is that they *don't* revert to the mean economically:

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that education is the best predictor of income and thus of benefit and cost," said UC Davis economist Philip L. Martin, an expert on rural immigrants. He cites studies that say an arriving immigrant with at least a high school education will pay an average $89,000 more in taxes and other revenues than he or she costs in services. Those with less than a high-school education, however, put such a demand on public services that their large negative value persists through their children's and grandchildren's generations.

In other words, the descendants of unskilled immigrants tend to be unskilled themselves. Second, third, and even fourth generation Hispanics in New Mexico are still earning well below the American median.

The poorest poor in the country are in New Mexico, where the average income of the bottom fifth is only $8,700...

Now, it's important to note that the Hispanics of New Mexico are by no means all recent immigrants: the conquistadors founded Santa Fe in 1609. Their descendants have been part of the U.S. since 1848. And these Hispanics have exerted more political power and for longer than Hispanics in any other state. For example, one of the two statues representing New Mexico in the Capitol Rotunda is of a Hispanic grandee who served as U.S. Senator from New Mexico for much of the first half of the 20th century.

Nonetheless, the Mexican-Americans of New Mexico have yet to assimilate well. An Albuquerque rocket scientist asks, "Does this tell us anything about how likely Hispanics in general are to catch up academically and economically with people of North European descent? Yes, indeed. It never has to happen at all, and even if it does, it might take more than 150 years."

Why take millions of people who can't pay their own way? Why bet on an uncertain future in which they become Republican technocrats? There are more deserving people out there, people who obey the laws of the United States and can contribute something to our economy. Again, to beat the dead horse - we could take millions of skilled immigrants. They're a heck of a lot more likely to vote Republican than unskilled Hispanic immigrants, even if they're not Christian (though Russians, Koreans, and Eastern Europeans *are* frequently Christian).

I mean, come on, Orrin - let's be realistic. A group earning below the median income is not going to vote GOP, especially if they're beneficiaries of racial preferences and transfer payments.

PS -

Just to make clear, I have no problem with taking Hispanic immigrants so long as they have a high school education or better .

GC --

Yes, I was being somewhat romantic, but that doesn't effect the argument. People are trying to get into the country repeatedly, being caught and turned back repeatedly and then trying again. This indicates to me that our border guarding efforts are not as feeble as it would seem and that, short of shooting illegals, we have no real law enforcement answer.

Your numbers on the economic impact of immigration are underwhelming, to say the least. The study you cite is from 1997, predates welfare reform and concludes that the net impact from immigration is positive. Assuming that Californians are paying a lot to subsidize immigration and that they don't like it, they should move. Why anyone wants to live in that nuthouse is a little puzzling to me anyway.

Frankly, what all these numbers show is what a small problem illegal immigration is, especially when divorced, as it should be, from issues of border security, which seems to be what the President is most concerned about.

Those NM Latinos have the same problem that slave descendants have--never having a classic immigrant experience. But just as Haitians and African immigrants now follow the classic pattern, so too will newer Latinos. I've got no problem though with requiring high school equivalency for immigrants after a set number of years, just as they should be required to pass citizenship and language proficiency exams whether they plan to stay or not. The problem isn't that they come but that we ask too little of them.

that Californians are paying a lot to subsidize immigration and that they don't like it, they should move.

Why should Californians move or shell out $1200 per year in taxes? Why can't they stop the influx - they do have the right to control their borders, don't they?

all these numbers show is what a small problem illegal immigration is

California's budget deficit is a *big deal*. And even the pro-illegals LA Times admits illegal aliens are anywhere from 40-60% of the current deficit:

So here's the bottom line: The total the state spends on illegal immigrants is no more than $4.6 billion a year, with CalWorks being a judgment call. This is a substantial amount, but clearly not enough to account for all of the state's budget gap, which is running $8 billion to $12 billion annually.

In actuality this is a major underestimate, as it excludes non-emergency health care costs, federal expenditures (which come out of Cali taxpayer pockets), extra education expenditures, and so on.

But let's be clear: illegal immigrants are very costly and a *big deal* economically. They are basically what threw Gray out of office - that deficit would be no where *near* as yawning had Prop 187 actually been enforced.

David, Orrin:

I guess the issue is this. I like the blog and agree with you guys on many issues, from France to federalism. I'm at a loss, however, to understand why rational guys like yourselves believe that this immigration policy is a good idea.

We could be cherry picking the world. Instead we're admitting millions of people without high school educations who don't speak English. As I pointed out above, this is highly unpopular even among American born Hispanics .

All I'm saying is that the conditions for entry should be:

a) a high school education or better (ideally a degree in something useful)
b) a commitment to obey the law rather than jump the queue

That's hardly unreasonable.

godless:

No one in my family had a high school degree and all jumped the queue--we've mostly been good Americans though. A desire to improve your life so fierce that you're willing to uproot yourself and brave even being an illegal seems more important than a sheepskin and patience.

But that was then, this is now. OJ, David, you forget the all-important role of the welfare state in the "classic immigrant experience". Back then there was none.

Ronnie:

Agreed, the problem is what we've done to our culture not what they might. We should fix ourselves.

David is right: This Guatemalan man is EXACTLY the type of person we need in America. If having him here offends anyone who's worried about population or taxation, then we should send some random middle class slacker to Guatemala in exchange.

godlesscapitalist:

Timothy is right.
Many of your facts and study results rest on the ILLEGAL status of many Mexican immigrants. OF COURSE they don't usually move up in the world; It's hard to do when you can't be acknowledged.

The most fundamental error you're making, however, is this: You're a Utopian.

As I've posted before, I completely agree with you in that the US SHOULD throw open its doors to anyone in the world with a degree, and their immediate family.
However, that's not the current immigration policy, as you well note, and WILL NOT BE anytime soon.

The reality is, Mexicans ARE coming to the US; They're by far the largest ethnic group of immigrants; And, the US is not going to do what it would take to stop them.

Given that, the question is: Is Mexican immigration harming America ?

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there is no shortage of unskilled workers in America, with 10 million adult native-born Americans in the workforce who lack high school diplomas. (Including myself).
What this must mean is, as oj notes time and again, American unskilled workers REFUSE to do the jobs that immigrants will take.

The Center for Immigration Studies, using estimates for immigrant statistics developed by the National Academy of Sciences, calculates that the average adult Mexican immigrant's lifetime net fiscal cost to American taxpayers is about $55,000.

Also, according to the National Center for Health Statistics 2000 report, female Mexican immigrants have an average lifetime birth rate of 3.3, compared to the 2.03 birth rate of native-born American women.
As the replacement birth rate is 2.1, it's apparent that without Mexican immigrants, (who have the highest birth rates of any significant immigrant group), the US would (eventually) have negative population growth.

If those two estimates are juxtaposed, one might conclude that American taxpayers are paying about $30,000 per Mexican-American child, to get population growth.
If you'd like to assert that the US could get Russian or Bulgarian children for less, and have them be less likely to drop out of high school, I'll heartily agree, but what we have are Mexicans.

Within the confines of what IS, rather than what SHOULD BE, Mexican immigration is a net plus for America.

The biggest problem, which you touch on again and again, is that half of all Mexican immigrants live in California, and another 30% live in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This puts a tremendous, and unfair, strain upon those states' budgets and resources.

One solution might be to increase Federal contributions to education and healthcare in those four states, and anywhere else that has an immigrant population higher than 10% of the total population.

David is right: This Guatemalan man is EXACTLY the type of person we need in America. If having him here offends anyone who's worried about population or taxation, then we should send some random middle class slacker to Guatemala in exchange.

godlesscapitalist:

Timothy is right.
Many of your facts and study results rest on the ILLEGAL status of many Mexican immigrants. OF COURSE they don't usually move up in the world; It's hard to do when you can't be acknowledged.

The most fundamental error you're making, however, is this: You're a Utopian.

As I've posted before, I completely agree with you in that the US SHOULD throw open its doors to anyone in the world with a degree, and their immediate family.
However, that's not the current immigration policy, as you well note, and WILL NOT BE anytime soon.

The reality is, Mexicans ARE coming to the US; They're by far the largest ethnic group of immigrants; And, the US is not going to do what it would take to stop them.

Given that, the question is: Is Mexican immigration harming America ?

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there is no shortage of unskilled workers in America, with 10 million adult native-born Americans in the workforce who lack high school diplomas. (Including myself).
What this must mean is, as oj notes time and again, American unskilled workers REFUSE to do the jobs that immigrants will take.

The Center for Immigration Studies, using estimates for immigrant statistics developed by the National Academy of Sciences, calculates that the average adult Mexican immigrant's lifetime net fiscal cost to American taxpayers is about $55,000.

Also, according to the National Center for Health Statistics 2000 report, female Mexican immigrants have an average lifetime birth rate of 3.3, compared to the 2.03 birth rate of native-born American women.
As the replacement birth rate is 2.1, it's apparent that without Mexican immigrants, (who have the highest birth rates of any significant immigrant group), the US would (eventually) have negative population growth.

If those two estimates are juxtaposed, one might conclude that American taxpayers are paying about $30,000 per Mexican-American child, to get population growth.
If you'd like to assert that the US could get Russian or Bulgarian children for less, and have them be less likely to drop out of high school, I'll heartily agree, but what we have are Mexicans.

Within the confines of what IS, rather than what SHOULD BE, Mexican immigration is a net plus for America.

The biggest problem, which you touch on again and again, is that half of all Mexican immigrants live in California, and another 30% live in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This puts a tremendous, and unfair, strain upon those states' budgets and resources.

One solution might be to increase Federal contributions to education and healthcare in those four states, and anywhere else that has an immigrant population higher than 10% of the total population.

One the other hand, Congressional apportionment now allots one representative for each 650,000 people resident in a state. Therefore, the states with heavy illegal immigrant populations split an extra 15 representatives, which is certainly worthe something to the states.

News flash: Hispanics are not socially conservative. Hispanics have illegimate babies at twice the rate of whites:

The report also found that illegitimate-birth rates "vary considerably by race and Hispanic origin." The percentage of out-of-wedlock births for non-Hispanic whites is 21.9 percent, but for non-Hispanic blacks it's 69.3 percent. For Hispanics it's 41.6 percent, and for American Indians 59.3 percent. For Asians and Pacific Islanders overall the number is 15.6 percent, but this varies from 51.1 percent for Hawaiians to 6.4 percent and 9.7 percent for Chinese and Japanese Americans, respectively.

Christian conservatives ought to move beyond the stereotypes and learn the facts. Groups that commit crime, have illegitimate babies, use welfare and other social services at much higher rate than whites are not social conservatives.